Tara L., The Mistress/Soon To Be Wife #2

[who knew?]

I wonder what TL thought as she got that text message. I'm sure she knew what time the funerals were. Even if she thought he was divorcing Sheri to be with her; she had to have wondered why he was texting her after the funerals. I'm sure she thought he at least loved his boys. I know I would have wondered. I know what it's like to lose a loved one. Your mind is in a fog and you can't think straight. I can't imagine how it would be to lose your entire family to a senseless crime. The fact that he could not only still function but think to text her speaks volumns, especially since the evidence is pointing to him being the one responsible. The total lack of feeling is astounding.

..... which all makes you wonder how much she knew. I know she's cooperating with LE, but I'd think she would have had alarm bells going off bigtime.

 

[panthera]

Thanks for the welcome, SeriouslySearching. It is astounding how stupid Chris was to not realize how transparent his actions would be. Now, with records of the texts and calls to his gf right after the murders, he reveals just how cold-hearted he really is. He must have thought he had pulled it off when he was contacting Tara after. Didn't he know the LE could trace everything back to him? He was on-fire with his own selfishness. Yuck!

Isn't it amazing that somebody who was head of security for JMM was so naive about technology? Or did he think LE wouldn't even question him and go after the mysterious stalker who sent the threatening messages? I can't imagine anybody being that sure of himself. MOO

 

[panthera]

I wonder what TL thought as she got that text message. I'm sure she knew what time the funerals were. Even if she thought he was divorcing Sheri to be with her; she had to have wondered why he was texting her after the funerals. I'm sure she thought he at least loved his boys. I know I would have wondered. I know what it's like to lose a loved one. Your mind is in a fog and you can't think straight. I can't imagine how it would be to lose your entire family to a senseless crime. The fact that he could not only still function but think to text her speaks volumns, especially since the evidence is pointing to him being the one responsible. The total lack of feeling is astounding.

But don't forget that Sheri used to be her friend! So not only was he cheating on Sheri, but with somebody she knew. Then Sheri and the boys are murdered ~ she had to have felt a least somewhat differently than if she hadn't known them. It will be interesting to hear what she has to say when the trial comes around. MOO

 

[Curious Me]

Wonder if Tara realized as soon as she heard of the murders who had done the killings. Maybe she remembered some stories about the church hater stalker. Did she immediately feel disgust in herself, and/or in Chris? Or did she feel especially needed and special when he called her from the funeral?

What some of you pointed out is not only was she having an affair with a married man, but betraying Sheri who was her friend. I hope she helps LE now.

 

[Curious Me]

Found some easy to read PDF initial warrants and documents here:

http://www.kmox.com/pages/4500133.php?

and

Discovery by LE of this "friend" Tara and the affair:

http://imgsrv.kmox.com/image/kmox/UserFiles/Image/news/10-sheri_yahoo.PDF

 

[VCDaedalus]

She will testify for the prosecution, which means she'll undergo cross examination, which could be a very interesting part of the trial. I believe I read in the Post-Dispatch that she would be testifying.

Remember, Tara not only has her legal status to consider, but her social, employment, and future career as Girlfriend Of A Murderer status as well. She has to groom the last one very carefully so as to reap maximum benefit while minimizing an appearance of avarice or immoral behavior. She could be like Jessica Hahn, or she could try for Amber Frey. She's neither. She has an unusual status in this affair--wife's close friend, employed in the sex industry. She should get a good agent and producer, like, now, and keep up those visits to the gym and hairdresser. She's in training.

 

[VCDaedalus]

I believe the prosecution will want to make Tara as much a technical witness as possible. She will establish the fact of an affair and certain events around the murders. I doubt very much the prosecution will play up her job in the gentlemen's club or the fact that she thought they'd get married. They really don't need that.

The defense, on the other hand, will try to play it as piling on Chris, trying to make him look like a lowlife, trying to make this single indiscretion in an otherwise spotless life into a motive for murder. Look at her, the defense may say. She's not worth three lives. He wouldn't kill his family for that. And they may accuse Tara L. of trying to capitalize on the murders for her own advancement and gain.

It will be very interesting. Tara L. will no doubt be a reason to attend the trial. I hope the prosecution doesn't insist she dress down. I'd like to see a full-blown Bad Woman outfit.

 

[who knew?]

I believe the prosecution will want to make Tara as much a technical witness as possible. She will establish the fact of an affair and certain events around the murders. I doubt very much the prosecution will play up her job in the gentlemen's club or the fact that she thought they'd get married. They really don't need that.

The defense, on the other hand, will try to play it as piling on Chris, trying to make him look like a lowlife, trying to make this single indiscretion in an otherwise spotless life into a motive for murder. Look at her, the defense may say. She's not worth three lives. He wouldn't kill his family for that. And they may accuse Tara L. of trying to capitalize on the murders for her own advancement and gain.

It will be very interesting. Tara L. will no doubt be a reason to attend the trial. I hope the prosecution doesn't insist she dress down. I'd like to see a full-blown Bad Woman outfit.

VC - you don't think the prosecution will play up the marriage plans? If she actually had already ordered the invitations, I think the prosecution would want to use that - to prove CC wanted out, but hadn't had the b@11$ to just file for a divorce and let her and the boys move on. That would prove (IMO) that she was worth the 3 lives to CC. OTOH - the prosecution probably doesn't even need Tara since CC was so stupid that he left a trail leading straight to himself.

What if the pros decided not to use Tara at all - do you think the defense would try to use her for anything? I don't think she'd be a good witness for them unless they were going to try to involve her in the crime itself......

 

[VCDaedalus]

Nick Pistor wrote that she will testify for the prosecution. I don't know how trials are run, but I think that means she can't also testify for the defense. Defense can cross-examine her about the marriage plans; it would work in the defense's favor to say that Tara's lying about the marriage plans, or she misunderstood Chris, or some other thing. If there is nothing on paper or in an email from Chris talking about marriage, then Tara could be portrayed as a liar who's trying to hurt Chris with this murder accusation. As in, "Chris wasn't divorcing, he was trying to work it out, the affair was about to end, he just told her marriage because she was making a huge deal out of it, etc."

If Chris never intended to marry Tara, that removes a fraction of the motive the murders. If Coleman sticks with SOGDI, he has to say he never planned to break up his marriage, lose his job, leave his wife and marry another.

If Tara IS a motive, she has to be portrayed as manipulating Chris into doing something he never otherwise would have done. She has to be portrayed as virtually forcing Chris to strangle his family, a femme fatale, a psychopath in her own right.

How the prosecution handles her will matter. If they let her do the Bad Woman thing, that serves the defense's "she made him do it" strategy. If they dress her like Miss Prim, treating her as just a "yes-no" witness to certain events and communications and nothing more, the defense has to play it as "this face couldn't cause three murders." Or go against the grain and point out that Tara is certainly dressing differently in court than she did when she seduced her best friend's husband. Tara has something to hide, namely her seedy past.

 

[VCDaedalus]

The trial is certainly a year or longer away; wonder what Tara will do with herself in the meantime? Certainly she has to look her very best for any court appearance. Her expenses have probably already begun to mount--she's almost certain to have retained legal representation. Say $300 a month retainer for a criminal defense attorney to look after any filings, subpoenas, or developments that affect her, just as a baseline. Tara already needs money. No magazine interviews or talk shows until after the trial, and if the trial is a fizzle, with little that Nancy Grace or Greta van Susteren can chew over, she won't have any notoriety to capitalize on.

What a strange position to be in. Tara could stand to make some significant money by being Girlfriend of a Murderer--but only if the trial is salacious enough to interest TV news or radio-show producers. She has to sit on her hands and wait for her cue, hit her marks, say everything just right (i.e., don't frustrate the prosecution or throw a spanner in the works), and CC has to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. THEN Tara can contemplate making money for her participation.

She needs an agent, like Nadya Suleman, and that costs money too.

 

[who knew?]

Yes - you are right. But I'm wondering why the pros would want to risk using Tara considering her seedy past, given that the def will cross her in the worst possible way trying to give the jury reasonable doubt. But, if the pros decides not to call her as a witness, I wondered if the def would try to use her for their own benefit - but then, the pros could tear her apart. She's not exactly the best witness no matter whose side she happens to testify for. I'd be worried if I were her - although I don't think there's any doubt that CC committed the crimes, you have to wonder about that ONE juror who could be persuaded by the def that CC didn't do it - that Tara set him up - the "scorned woman". That's where a jury is a scarey prospect. JMO

 

[VCDaedalus]

I think if there is any traction at all for the defense in Tara L., it's as part of a "temporary insanity" defense, to wit: Tara The Seductress, the experienced man-eater, pounces upon Chris Coleman, who's unhappy, lonely, vulnerable, psychologically fragile, and makes him a victim of her aggression toward her old high school friend.

Using Kama Sutra techniques the likes of which near-virgin Chris Coleman had never experienced in his sweet short life, Tara Lintz wound a web of sex and psychological entrapment to force him to murder his family as the only means to achieve her love.

THAT might work on the One Doofus Juror. Margulis will try to find as many jurors as possible who believe that women carry Evil Powers over men between their legs, that a woman could tease, tantalize, and torture a normal moral man into trading his family's lives for her sexual favors. Why, the hussy was even planning to marry him, and Sheri barely cold! She must have had Chris's man jewels in her purse!

For Chris to be found with reduced responsibility for the murders, then someone else has to carry the burden. If they're going for a reduced charge, like second-degree murder (if they can block evidence, it might work), then Tara has to be an "unindicted co-conspirator" who can't be touched by any laws, but who surely bears some of the responsibility for the murders. They can pretty much say anything about her that they want, and if the prosecution tries to limit her contribution and tone her sexuality down, that might leave a "gray area" that the defense will hurry to paint in the most lurid colors possible.

"Sure, he did it--but she made him do it, and therefore he cannot be found guilty of premeditated first-degree murder. He may even be legally innocent due to diminished capacity because she controlled his mind. He was actually suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, identifying with his oppressor--Tara Lintz."

It might work.

 

[DomCasual]

Sheri is much more attractive than Tara, IMO - especially when you take that ridiculous bikini picture into account.

 

[Tom'sGirl]

Please take care in who you involve just because they have the same name.

Thanks!

 

[Bluenotes]

Yes - you are right. But I'm wondering why the pros would want to risk using Tara considering her seedy past, given that the def will cross her in the worst possible way trying to give the jury reasonable doubt. But, if the pros decides not to call her as a witness, I wondered if the def would try to use her for their own benefit - but then, the pros could tear her apart. She's not exactly the best witness no matter whose side she happens to testify for. I'd be worried if I were her - although I don't think there's any doubt that CC committed the crimes, you have to wonder about that ONE juror who could be persuaded by the def that CC didn't do it - that Tara set him up - the "scorned woman". That's where a jury is a scarey prospect. JMO

The one juror may cause a mistrial, but it wouldn't help him for long. In Kirkwood, MO the killer of a Kirkwood police officer had his first trial end in mistrial. They got him with the next one and he is now on death row.

 

[VCDaedalus]

True, Bluenotes, but the Coleman case is different in many ways, and those differences may lead to a jury that's hung over 1st versus 2nd degree murder, even if they find Coleman guilty.

The perp in the Kirkwood police officer case was the shooter--there was no "some other guy did it" defense to be mounted. He claimed extreme provocation based on how the KPD didn't response quickly enough to an emergency call. No GF, no house, no life insurance, no high-level job with a religious organization.

Nothing that exculpated the perp in any way. Plus he was black, young, male, and not exactly an example of a model citizen--at least not to the extent that Chris Coleman's defenders could claim he was.

Coleman is working the Some Other Guy Did It defense. If that doesn't work, the jury could still believe that the murder wasn't a cold-hearted premedidated act. Even his promises to marry Tara and divorce Sheri aren't admissions of intent to kill, and there's no email or piece of paper that mentions killing the family.

So the One Doofus Juror, which Margulis hopes to have and replicate times 12, could believe that Sheri just drove Chris mad (like them females do) and he killed her in a blind rage--see, no premeditation! Then when he realized what he'd done, he had to kill the kids. Well, that last doesn't help when arguing non-premeditated blind rage killings. But they could argue that he didn't premeditate murdering them, either. He just decided on the spur of the moment--a bad decision, surely, but not cold premeditation in advance.

I could definitely see one lone holdout with an attention/drama itch to scratch creating a hung jury over the issue of 1st versus 2nd-degree murder. And I don't doubt that Margulis will exploit that to the max.

 

[VCDaedalus]

I'm sure Margulis & Co. will be on the lookout for some self-satisfied conceited person who believes that they're just's smart as any lawyer--smarter even! And smarter than the police, and smarter than anyone else on the jury. Someone who sees an anti-Christian conspiracy at work here (that no one else sees only because they aren't as razor-sharp as Doofus Juror), that's trying to frame this guy.

Alternately, he could be a bitter and frustrated male who believes that all women are Evil Between The Legs and who would have no trouble believing either that Tara manipulated Chris into committing the murders, or that Sheri provoked him into a killing rage--'cause that's what them females DO.

With all his years of experience choosing jurors--as well as the availability of jury-selection consultants--Margulis has eyes, ears, and antennae out for a devout Christian white male juror who would identify with the perpetrator and who evidences a strong belief in his Native Wisdom and may look like a guy who Ain't Gettin Any (obese, old, poorly groomed, puffy alky face, divorced, etc.).

Such people have ways of signaling this, consciously and unconsciously. Like a poker player who only thinks he has a complete poker face. Margulis knows how to pick 'em.

 

[Kimster]

The theory is a good one but it would be even better had Sheri not been a beauty in her own right! CC was enticed with his male eyes because he didn't have someone just as lovely in the wings, you know.

 

[VCDaedalus]

The conflict between Bianca and Carmen (or Scarlett and Melanie) has been going on for centuries. It's not really about who's the prettiest.

 

[Kimster]

The conflict between Bianca and Carmen (or Scarlett and Melanie) has been going on for centuries. It's not really about who's the prettiest.

Are we discussing the matter of endorphins? :yow: